This entire "debate" is rediculous anyways.
SSDs are good at being fast and surviving being dropped. HDDs are good at being cheap per GB. Both have their place. There is no reason you can't have both in (or for use with) the same system.
I work at a small-market IT subcontractor where we do project and break-fix work for a huge variety of businesses and hardware manufacturers.
Out there in the real world very few large businesses use over 40~80GB on the primary hard drives of end-user desktops or point of sale, despite the fact that they all come with at least 500GB. Anything other than the OS and applications and current user's profile really should live on the network somewhere. That somewhere is probably on a spinning platter.
SMBs often will have a lot of data on each desktop HDD, but they really should have a workgroup server to do centralized authentication (domain|LDAP), email (exchange|IMAP), user (profiles|homedirs), fileshares and centralized backup as very few have any organized way to recover from loss or damage of one or more workstation. Most users need very little space; Executive, secretary, accounting, medical office data, etc all is small and should really be on a server. Some applications (ie CAD, GIS, medical imaging, media editing, etc) do require large local fast storage, but this can be handled by having two drives: 1 SSD and one or more HDD in the few workstations that need it.
Home users can easily have more than that much on their desktop or laptop, but there's no reason their computer can't have 1 SSD and 1 or more HDDs be they internal, external, or NAS.